[CDL.TO]

But that's the whole point. Sometimes intersections aren't empty when you think they are, and that's when accidents happen.

I can't say that I've ever thought an intersection was empty when it wasn't. Automobiles tend to be rather large objects that are hard to miss when your eyes are on the road. It frightens me that you, a driver, claim that it's possible for you to completely miss the other cars on the road.

 

[TKTKTK]

Yet again, this has nothing to do with selective or discretionary application of rules. (For that matter, how would it even be possible to write a law that permits discretionary application of a law? It's inherently absurd.) It would be a consistent application of a law... a cyclist can treat a stop sign as a yield sign. It's that simple.

It's inconsistent in regard to other vehicles using the road. I don't agree that we should have separate, basic, road laws for different types of vehicles. If we're going to stick to a consistant standard than a 'STOP' should be a 'STOP' for everyone. If a 'STOP' isn't appropriate, then change the control of the intersection, but do it properly and universally. There's a reason we control intersections, it isn't only to create inconvenience.

And don't claim that I wouldn't support the same sort of treatment for automobiles. I think stop signs are overused and the majority of them should be replaced with yield signs. I also think it's stupid to get worked up about cars that use a rolling stop at a stop sign at a empty intersection.

I think there's a fundamental difference between the two. If you want everyone to yield, instead of stop, than use a yield sign.

It's pretty humourous that you pull out statistics showing the number of accidents where cyclists didn't properly yield the right of way to bolster your opposition to something that would have ABSOLUTELY no affect on the law about yielding the right of way.

I think it points to an existing problem that will only be exacerbated by your solution. If cyclists are already commonly treating stop signs as yields (to dangerous results) then what's a yield sign going to mean? Just a pre-emptive yell? A whistle?

I realize Idaho has found great results...but I'm skeptical that they'll port to a city as large and bustling as this.

I guess a comparison would be how Quebec legalized right turns on red only in 2003. If this was UrbanQuebec in 2002 I would be sitting here saying "Right turns on red when the way is clear makes a lot of sense, it improves traffic flow" while you would be saying "I've seen cars flaunting the law making right turns on red, so we shouldn't make it legal! And this will have cars colliding with other vehicles and running over pedestrians because they won't know who has the right-of-way! Either follow the laws or don't drive!".

What you're proposing would be more akin to Quebec allowing some cars to turn right on red, but not others. It would create unpredictable interactions. Is that car going to pull out? Or is it going to follow the other law?

 

[TKTKTK]

I can't say that I've ever thought an intersection was empty when it wasn't. Automobiles tend to be rather large objects that are hard to miss when your eyes are on the road. It frightens me that you, a driver, claim that it's possible for you to completely miss the other cars on the road.

You know, every driver would swear up and down that they were perfect and would never make a mistake like that. The reality is that it happens. If cars were impossible to miss in every circumstance then we'd hardly have accidents. Certainly if that were universally the case, cyclists wouldn't be getting hit by cars by improperly riding through controlled intersections.

I think there's a lot of risky behaviour on the roads that's become the 'norm'. Just because you've never gotten into an accident by rolling through a stop sign doesn't make the action safe. All it takes is one unfortunate misjudgment and it's too late.

 

[adma]

I guess a comparison would be how Quebec legalized right turns on red only in 2003. If this was UrbanQuebec in 2002 I would be sitting here saying "Right turns on red when the way is clear makes a lot of sense, it improves traffic flow" while you would be saying "I've seen cars flaunting the law making right turns on red, so we shouldn't make it legal! And this will have cars colliding with other vehicles and running over pedestrians because they won't know who has the right-of-way! Either follow the laws or don't drive!".

hehehehe..."flaunting"

 

[adma]

I think there's a lot of risky behaviour on the roads that's become the 'norm'. Just because you've never gotten into an accident by rolling through a stop sign doesn't make the action safe. All it takes is one unfortunate misjudgment and it's too late.

As a pedestrian, I do plenty of jaywalking, going against red lights, even treating stoplighted intersections as de facto "scramble intersections" (esp. when the light is turning). Technically, it's not "safe"--but I do it, though exercising judgment, too.

And I also wave through cars who wind up stuck in intersections when the light is changing. So, it works both ways.

 

[Team Me]

I think it points to an existing problem that will only be exacerbated by your solution. If cyclists are already commonly treating stop signs as yields (to dangerous results) then what's a yield sign going to mean? Just a pre-emptive yell? A whistle?

The only reason this is much more dangerous now is because it isn't law for cyclists to treat stop signs as yields. They are employing common sense (and admittedly are breaking the law), but when that is not recognized by drivers, it can create a potentially dangerous situation because neither the driver nor the cyclist know what they're supposed to do. I'll give you that. And that is how frustrating situations between drivers and cyclists often occur – I know that as both a driver and a cyclist.

But if it becomes law, the understanding will be there. It shouldn't really affect the driver at all, except to make them more aware of cyclists on the road. But it will create a much more efficient ride for the cyclist.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Pedestrians have to stop at red lights (in theory).

Since bicyclist have to stop at stop signs (in theory), because they have to follow traffic laws, like automobiles, and since automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians have to stop at red lights (again in theory), then pedestrians should also have to come to a full stop at stop signs. That includes baby strollers, skateboarders, and motorized wheelchairs.

Sounds like a basis for a Monty Python skit, if they were still around​

 

[dunkalunk]

What I find really annoying when on a bicycle at 1 am are the weight triggers they put at intersections for cars. On a bicycle, it's impossible to trigger them without jumping up and down. (Fortunately, I have good shocks). What we need is something like Vancouver's bike infrastructure system Link to Article.

I know that drivers often treat Toronto's main thoroughfares as surface highways (essentially that's what they are). The case is the same on Hurontario in Missisauga, Hespeler Road in Cambridge, ect. In these environments, car is king. Perhaps the only way this problem could be solved is density (speaking of vancouver). If you bring building closer to the road and destination for pedestrians, plus provide adequate places to lock bicycles, drivers would have something to slow down and look at. It can be hard to keep your cool when there is nothing to look at besides marking lots and red tail lights.

 

[Chuck]

What I find really annoying when on a bicycle at 1 am are the weight triggers they put at intersections for cars. On a bicycle, it's impossible to trigger them without jumping up and down. (Fortunately, I have good shocks). What we need is something like Vancouver's bike infrastructure system Link to Article.

Ya, that's not how cars are detected at all.

What you're referring to is called an actuated intersection. This type of intersection is identifiable by a thin rectangular box cut into the pavement near where motorists stop, more often than not in left turn lanes and minor side streets. A wire is placed within the pavement cut and as a car (or any metallic object) passes over the wire, a current is induced, thereby telling the traffic light that a car is stopped.

You might have better luck finding the pavement cut, and stopping your bike on top of it. Note that traffic light technology adopted in central Toronto is among the most out of date in the GTA, and you'll be very hard pressed to find any actuated intersections south of Lawrence. Most intersections run on fixed sequences regardless of the presence of stopped cars. You can keep jumping up and down on your bike though, it probably looks quite amusing.

If you're a car driver, you can easily create your own personal advanced green just by stopping your car on top of the detection loop, which is typically 2-3 car lengths back from the stop line.

This technology is actually quite useful. Though most commonly used to detect stopped cars at intersections, detection loops can also be placed a few hundred feet before the intersection to detect approaching cars. This will tell the light to turn green before you get there, or tell the light to stay green just a little bit longer until you pass through. MTO has dozens of detection loops on the 401 that can easily detect traffic jams, and automatically update the overhead traffic flow signs when a traffic jam forms. Alas, you won't find any of this at downtown intersections where they are needed most. But given that the City of Toronto is in control, does that really surprise you?

 

[TKTKTK]

What I find really annoying when on a bicycle at 1 am are the weight triggers they put at intersections for cars. On a bicycle, it's impossible to trigger them without jumping up and down. (Fortunately, I have good shocks). What we need is something like Vancouver's bike infrastructure system Link to Article.

My car's often too little to trigger them on it's own, too. Sometimes I can only turn right at those lights (unless a kindly pedestrian comes along, or a fatter car).

 

[dunkalunk]

Aluminum bicycle, go fig. After a minute I usually just give up and hit the crosswalk button.

 

[W. K. Lis]

May Let CA Cyclists Ignore Traffic Stops

Bicycle laws change requests has made news in the states.

An idea is gaining momentum to allow bicyclists to pedal through stop signs, without stopping.

Bicyclists claim that it can be tough to stop a bike at a red light or a stop sign, only to start pedaling all over again.

The state of Idaho changed its law, and now California is considering the same idea. The vehicle code would be modified to allow what's known as a "stop and roll." Bicyclists could treat stop signs as yield signs instead, and red lights as stop signs.

"Bicycles would still have to yield if there was a car at a stop sign. They would still have to stop for that car and let them go through," explained Rachel Kraai with the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. "At a stop light they would still have to stop and look both ways, but then they could go through."

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission will explore the idea Thursday afternoon, and consider asking state lawmakers to consider it.

Kraai says the number of bicycles outnumbers cars on a regular basis, during morning rush hour on San Francisco's Market Street, giving added weight to the proposal. "The laws need to change with the growing numbers of cyclists."

"I just don't think that should work. I mean, they should obey traffic laws like the rest of us," argued driver Tim Blevins. "I think it's kind of silly actually. I can just see lawsuits if a bicyclist does that and then gets hit by a car and who's going to be at fault?"

"It's what they're doing already," pointed out David Lee. "I never see, rarely see, a bicyclist stop at a stop sign completely or a red light. So I'd rather have a law that's more practical, one that might actually be enforced. So I would tend to be for it."

View the videos on the link. (There are commercials.)

 

[unimaginative2]

It's pretty hilarious hearing all these arguments about road laws since I'm presently in a place with virtually none of them. It's amazing how well it works. Everybody is acutely aware of what they're doing, and what other vehicles around them are doing. People drive much more slowly than in Toronto. If you want to cross the street, you just cross. Cars and motorcycles just go around you. I'm not saying that it's a great system, or worthy of emulation, but it does show how well people can handle situations with lots of traffic and few regulations.

 

[Dichotomy]

Okay, I am new here, but I've haunted other sites before, so here goes:

There is a serious disconnect in humanity happening in Canada, but particularly in Toronto. I have driven in many countries around the world, and I don't think any place frightens me as much as Toronto.
Here are the problems as I see it:'
1) Convergence of many different cultures with many different habits/attitudes toward obeying laws and signs in general.
2) Over loaded, under maintained infrastructure.
3) General lack of respect or empathy.
4) General feeling of entitlement/selfishness.
5) Stupid, unenforceable laws that are turning decent citizens into furtive
law breakers.

Many, if not most pedestrians ignore traffic rules, play with their cell phones and generally walk like zombies. Recently, a woman with a toddler ambled against a red and when I blew the horn at her, I must have woke her up and when she snatched her kid to the curb she gave me the middle finger! Cyclists are next in line. They may obey more rules than pedestrians, but not by a lot. Motorists have to obey most rules because our insurance depends on it.

There is so much hostility out there today. Why does a human that gets inside their vehicle stop being a human and become a 'motorist?' Does it make us feel morally superior when we scream about 'stupid cyclists' or 'selfish motorists?'

We don't need more laws. I liked the article posted from Jim Kenzie. Kudos. We need more empathy. People, no matter what mode of locomotion, need to be more aware of their surroundings.

But above all else, remember one thing: when a vehicle and a cyclist tangle, the cyclist always loses. That's a fact of physics.

 

[dunkalunk]

Not to be a complete cynic, but empathy is nice to think about, bu ultimately impossible to enforce. People in general are selfish beings with selfish motives and unless the concequences of their actions are plainly visible, they will take as many shortcuts as possible.

As a side note, people in india seem to get along fine without enforced traffic rules...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM